The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Don't Sleep on Standing
A useful reminder from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to read circuit rules before filing.
One of the lessons I learned when clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is that it is always important to consider Article III standing when suing the federal government, even if the government does not raise standing as a defense. I can still recall an oral argument at which one of the judges effectively told a litigant they could sit down if they could not explain the basis upon which they were invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court. This is particularly important in the D.C. Circuit given its rules.
Today, in Entergy Arkansas v. FERC, Judge Randolph provides a reminder of why it is always important to brief standing. His opinion begins:
In this consolidated case, a series of Entergy companies petition for review of three Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders. FERC had rejected tariff changes proposed by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, reasoning that the new tariff would give Entergy too much market power. Entergy urges us to find that FERC's decisions were arbitrary and capricious.
We do not reach the merits of this dispute. Entergy lacks standing. The company's opening brief failed to discuss standing, thereby forfeiting any arguments in support of this jurisdictional prerequisite. Entergy's omission of standing also ran afoul of Circuit Rule 28(a)(7). Given both the forfeiture principles inherent in Rule 28(a)(7) and our court's past practice, dismissal is the appropriate consequence. Even if we were to consider the standing arguments Entergy now belatedly advances, the company has not demonstrated the necessary concrete, imminent, and redressable injury.
In the body of the opinion, Judge Randolph explains that forfeiture applies to standing, and it is not sufficient to address standing for the first time in a reply brief. Indeed, this is codified in D.C. Circuit rule 28(a)(7), which provides:
In cases involving direct review in this court of administrative actions, the brief of the appellant or petitioner must set forth the basis for the claim of standing. This section, entitled "Standing," must follow the summary of argument and immediately precede the argument. When the appellant's or petitioner's standing is not apparent from the administrative record, the brief must include arguments and evidence establishing the claim of standing. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d Rule 28895, 900-01 (D.C. Cir. 2002). If the evidence is lengthy, and not contained in the administrative record, it may be presented in a separate addendum to the brief. If it is bound with the brief, the addendum must be separated from the body of the brief (and from any other addendum) by a distinctly colored separation page. Any addendum exceeding 40 pages must be bound separately from the brief.
The petitioner here did not follow this rule, and thus they find themselves on the losing side. From Judge Randolph's opinion:
Entergy's opening brief provided neither argument, nor analysis, nor evidence to support its standing. The words "standing," "injury," "traceability," and "redressability" do not appear in the document. In its responsive brief, FERC argued that Entergy lacked standing. Only then, in the reply brief, did Entergy argue that "the bases for Entergy's standing [were] readily apparent." Reply Br. 3 n.1. But even if the bases and evidence were there, the argumentation was not. No reasonable reader of the principal Entergy brief would walk away with a clear understanding of petitioners' precise injuries, the chain of causation, and how a decision of this court could redress those harms. Its brief was about an APA challenge, not standing.
As Judge Randolph notes, the failure to demonstrate standing is grounds for dismissal.
The opinion goes on to explain why Entergy's late-made arguments for standing were still insufficient, but that does not lessen the larger point: Brief standing and pay attention to circuit rules.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
2 questions for the lawyers:
I thought an appeals court was restricted to reviewing issues at dispute from the lower court decision? (as in, attorneys object to a ruling, not because they expect that judge to change his mind but rather to preserve their ability to appeal that ruling… no objection, no appeal). So, if standing wasn’t addressed by the ‘losing’ party in the lower court, is this the exception to the rule?
And does the loser in this case get a chance to refill their claim in order to establish standing? And if so, do they have to go through the whole process from the start or is there a process whereby they get to simply introduce what was missing the first time around?
Jurisdiction is the exception, not standing specifically. Every court must independently decide that it has jurisdiction, even if no party disputes it.
1. Yes, federal courts are obligated to address standing even if sua sponte
2. If dismissal is without prejudice they can refile and address standing and follow circuit rules
As others have indicated here, standing is part of subject matter jurisdiction. Which goes to the Court's fundamental power to judge. No jurisdiction, the Court is powerless to act.
Which is why jurisdiction is never waived -- it can be raised for the first time on appeal. And the court may, and indeed must, raise it on its own even if the parties don't raise it.
Tol put a little more gloss on this, standing (IIRC) is viewed as a constitutional issue, which is why it is never waived. Art III gives federal courts the authority to resolve "cases and controversies." Lack of standing means there is no actual case or controversy, and thus no constitutional authority for the court to act.
That's true as far as it goes. But it extends to statutory jurisdiction as well. Federal courts are only granted jurisdiction by Congress. If the plaintiff does not meet the jurisdictional requirement, then the court has to dismiss the case.
I recall as a first-year associate, a partner was giving a presentation and asked me to find and outline an interesting recent decision. I found a Third Circuit decision where a case had been litigated for five years. When it reached appeal, the Third Circuit said, no subject matter jurisdiction, case dismissed, go to state court. Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758 (3d Cir. 1995) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-3rd-circuit/1115681.html
The D.Ct. judge I worked for was merciless about quizzing his clerks about the claimed basis for jurisdiction. I'd like to think one of his cases wouldn't have been disposed of like that on appeal. (Also, he wasn't in the 3d Cir.)
Worth noting that in this case the DC Circuit isn’t reviewing a lower court decision. It’s reviewing an administrative action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Federal Power Act allows review of certain FERC decisions to be to go directly to the Circuit Court, without an intermediate stop in District Court.
If only such rules on standing were uniformly observed. Much more likely to be disregarded the more important* the case is.
*opposing the Trump administration.
Are circuit courts free to make their own rules and if so, why?
1. Yes.
2. Because Fed. R. App. Proc. 47(a) says they can.
Can you give us an example of an actual case in which standing was disregarded because the lawsuit was brought to oppose Trump?
This one?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25888808/24a904-order.pdf
Great job by the attorneys! The clients must be impressed..
It's one thing to lose a close case based on a strong argument, but it must be pretty tough to explain to your client that they go back to square one because you failed to follow one of the basic rules of the court. The presenting attorney has, according to her bio, been admitted to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals since 2016.
Question for the lawyers: do they, in fact, go back to square one? What the next step for them here? Can they file again with the standing argument included? Even then, it's going to add another year to the case. This one was argued six months ago, and the decision only came out today.
"must be pretty tough to explain to your client"
Not to mention your malpractice carrier!
Standing is absolutely a very important issue! Unless its an immigration or gun case, or generally any other case brought by sympathetic progressives. Standing for me but not for thee.
These comments by you and Hendo are hilarious.
First, you've gotta admire the persecution complex. Here's a totally boring procedural discussion where the attorney completely failed to heed the court's rules and do any analysis whatsoever. But these folks have to tie it back to some sort of grievance about the libs getting one over on them somehow.
Second, given the absurdly tenuous standing claims that conservatives have been making (and winning on sometimes!), it turns out this whole argument is just pure projection. See, e.g., 303 Creative, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the various state plaintiffs in the student loan cases, etc.
No, the real hilarity is judges playing Mother May I and Simon Says because they'd rather take six months to honor ritual than let a case proceed to trial and have to do their job.
Kind of embarrassing when your anti-choice wet dream of a case gets shot down 9-0 by the S.Ct. because Judge Kacsmaryk ignored black-letter law on standing to reach the result he just knew God would approve of.
But hey, those wacky libz! Standing only gets ignored for guns and illegals, amirite?
Not sure why you felt the need to associate my comment with dwb68's. I was making no political statement at all.
In fact, I was criticizing the attorney in the case for failing to properly follow the standing rules of the court. My argument was precisely about the "boring procedural discussion," as evidenced by my last paragraph where I asked what happens next for the petitioners in this case.
Oops, sorry. I didn't mean to point at your post. Bad copy/paste. I meant to point to MaddogEngineer.
"You lose on procedure and you lose on the substance" is not much of a lesson. To really send a message the court would have to say "That could well be a winning argument. Too bad you failed to raise it in your opening brief."
Its brief was about an APA challenge, not standing.
APA ?
American Plywood Association ?
I assume the Administrative Procedures Act.
Standing - just another way Courts get out of doing their job for conservatives.
Its cousin is Mootness.
If I were king, I'd ban the concept of standing and mootness.
So you would wish to spend your days in the royal presence chamber listening to people wiseacre about other people's interests and get into meaningless arguments that really didn't change anything.
Well, you've found the right website.
Mr. D.
I thought I remembered you saying you were an attorney at some point.
I must have misremembered.
So if you borrow money from John Doe, you want anybody to be able to sue you?
Don't sleep on standing, and no sleep 'til Brooklyn.
I have to say, there seems a rather obvious standing argument here. FERC rejected the proposed tariff on grounds that the revised rules requiring more bilateral purchase contracts and less dependence on the centralized auction process would benefit large market players like Entergy because it would force buyers to buy from them bilateratally, without the competitive pressures of open bidding, resulting in higher prices. FERC thought large players’ market advantage in a bilateral contract world would be an unfair one, and prices would be unfairly inflated. But whether FERC’s fairness analysis is right or consistent with its statutory mandate is something Entergy is entitled to dispute.
It seems to me that put this way, there’s pretty solid evidence of standing. FERC thought Entergy would make more money with the proposed rules than without them. If FERC is right about the new tariff raising prices and letting companies like Entergy charge more, then Entergy is making less money than it thinks it is entitled to; its loss is fairly tracable to FERC’s action rejecting the proposed tariff rules; a court could redress it by ordering FERC to accept the new tariff. That’s standing right there.
FERC might be wrong about the new tariff raising prices; it might be right that auctions are in the public interest per its regulatory mandate, but all of those questions are merits questions, not standing questions. FERC’s reasons for its action strike me, by themselves, as strong evidence in favor of standing, enough to confer jurisdictions.
Sorry, FERC might be wrong that auctions are in the public interest per its regulatory mandate.
The law should be made as technical as possible for two reasons:
1. It ensures that lawyers do not starve.
2. It minimizes the risk of justice prevailing.